Re: WICG Incubation vs CSSWG Process

> On 12/26/2016 08:27 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016, 10:37 PM fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net
>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> In what ways was Transforms, Animations, and Transitions incubated before
>> shipping?
>>
>
> There was rough agreement on a rough spec, details to be worked out
> after shipping in production. This was done unintentionally due to
> circumstances, but to the extent that incubation results in the same
> thing--a spec without details worked out shipped in production--it
> will result in a similar problem: difficulty in ironing out interop
> due to compat restrictions with deployed content.
>
> Whether or not incubation involves that step depends on who you're
> asking. I'm merely pointing out that to the extent that it would
> involve that, it would circumvent the WG's ability to "review", as
> Michael put it. (There's a reason the point is a footnote...)
>
>
This is why my earlier comments about there seeming to be disagreement
about what we are talking about.  FWIW, this does not fit the meaning of
incubation of anything I have advocated for nor how I have seen anything
work so far in WICG.  Nothing in incubation should ship into production
natively.  I would actually consider this a thing that incubation is there
to help prevent.  Nothing should prevent the WGs review of anything in
incubation either, in fact, WG members can/should participate in incubation
if they have interest IMO.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here I'm just stressing that I think
it's really difficult to have any kind of conversation without a fair
degree of common understanding what the words even mean.  If there is an
especially ambiguous understanding of what is meant by incubation (and
there seems to be), then _that_ seems like something we should work to
clear that up ASAP, before continuing other sorts of discussions that
require that.  How can we do that?



-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com